Honestly, I think that when you pay 2150€ for a pro-grade lens sample variation should be minimal and barely noticeable, while in this case they seem worlds apart. It's just unacceptable, it can't be a lottery. Not for this price. This lens is 25% to 350% more expensive than any Zeiss lens.

I've seen 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina bashed here for much much less and for 400€ priced lenses. At least let's all be objective about the epic fail that it is - for one reason or another.

Zeiss lenses have also had huge variations that testers have reported, so I'm not sure why you think they are any better.Is it really possible to make a lens for under $30 or 40K that has miniscule variation from unit to unit? Lens have 14-18 elements, and the possible number of tolerance combinations is huge, so even with tight control of tolerancs, each lens would need to be hand made and thats where those huge cinema lens prices come in.

g3act

The price point for both the 24-70 II and the 5D MK III does seem very high compared to the current price of previous iterations. However, apparently the 24-70 MK I was $2100 at launch. If these lenses reduce in price by such a large amount can we expect the new Canon to be around $1400 within the next year or two? Will it be viewed in a different light as a result?

I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.

The price point for both the 24-70 II and the 5D MK III does seem very high compared to the current price of previous iterations. However, apparently the 24-70 MK I was $2100 at launch. If these lenses reduce in price by such a large amount can we expect the new Canon to be around $1400 within the next year or two? Will it be viewed in a different light as a result?

I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.

Well, yes, a -30% in price changes the picture. Honestly it's the same for me, though I've never heard of things like this for the 70-200 II and comparably-priced lenses. Not this huge a difference.

personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?

Yes. The zoom is large, smooth and in front. It turns opposite to the Cannon. The focus ring is small, but right behind the zoom ring, making it quicker for me to adjust on the fly. Familiarity with the equipment is all that is required. Some folks don't care for the push/pull zoom on the 100-400L, but I am quite fond of it. Plus, if I'm on a boat that is sinking, I can pump out water with it

I've had Tamron lenses in the past and liked the IQ and price/value ... but, never got used to the wrong turning direction of the zoom ring. Sold them all.

I see it as blatant lack of respect towards their Canon clients to not offer correct turning direction for each lens mount. AS long as they do not change this, I will not buy a lens from them, no matter what. Same goes for Sigma and tokina. Want to make Nikon-style lenese? Go, sell to Nikon owners but not to Canon users.

To me it was a real hazzle and cost some quick shots when after changing lenses, the zoom ring suddenly turns the wrong way.

And Canon also rightfully suffers from their decision to not equip the 24-70 II with IS. And charge outrageuosly while not ensuring proper quality control to ensure sample variation is kept to minimal levels. Good that this comes around to bite them. They deserve it.

But since Canon does not offer me a fully competitive FF body, I have no need for a 24-70 for the time being anyway. I'll sit back and watch the street price plummet faster and deeper than expected. hehe!

g3act

My point, I suppose, is that if there is so much sample variation between lenses, it kind of makes lens reviews completely pointless. They are reviewing that particular copy ( or batch ) or a lens, rather than the product as a whole. Maybe, we expect everything we buy to be perfect, or maybe those of us who prowl these forums are just perfectionists ( count me in )

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.

Yeah and he even says the tamron is as good on the wide end, but really? His numbers don't say that and his samples sure do not. Just compare the 24mm samples of the building take with both and look at how much crisper the trees on the left and building edge on the right look with the canon (granted who knows how he focused those).

And look at this, just as the MTF charts predicted more or less (the extreme corner is worse than expected but that doesn't matter so much really, so I ignore his extreme numners, far bits of each corner, not THAT big of a deal, it's the center, mid-frame and extreme side edges that matter most):

My Tamron 28-75 is better than his for sure, he must have a bum copy.Man that Zeiss 25 2 whoaaaa.But that 24-70 II sure looks good though, no?

As expected looking at 24mm, f/4 and f/8, center, edge and CA and distortion the 24-105 basically comes in last of everything. The 24-70 II comes in best of the zooms and even better than primes at times.

Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.

Even though they show it to be sharper at the center and edge than all the other zooms and even some of the primes? (yeah maybe it is behind the primes mostly on his extreme corner test and barely better than the other zooms there at times, but again, we are not talking even extreme edge but extreme far corners where the eye is least likely to bother looking at an image)

Klaus stated in photozone forums that if the money was not an issue, he would go with the Canon mk2. He does not seem to find a legitimate reason for the price difference it seems. Border sharpness at 70 mm is a bit concerning though. I understand sample varience is inevitable but paying over 2K for a lens that might underperform a 1K lens (which also has IS) in certain settings?..

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.

Here is a video from a few years back about Canon manufacturing a 500mm f/4 lens. You get a idea about whats involved. THere are three parts, this links to part 1. You can easily find the others.

I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.

I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.

The cold hard light of a Photozone review is a useful perspective, but it is best balanced against real world feedback from working photographers. The lens is selling quickly so there should be a flood of user feedback coming in to help inform out purchase decisions. This review doesn't put me off, but it is a sobering counter to the gushing early feedback.